(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Yoma 14



(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah, the Kohen Gadol must marry another wife before Yom Kipur, because we are afraid that his wife may die. We will not stop him from doing the Avodah if she does, in spite of the fact that he is an Onan (whom we would not permit to continue with the Avodah during the year, since he may forget and eat Kodshim) - because it is Yom Kipur (and seeing as nobody else is eating, we are not afraid that he may eat Kodshim).

(b) If not for the fact that it was Yom Kipur, we would have decreed, and forbidden him to continue with the Avodah if his wife died, because even though he is not an Onan, he will nevertheless be forbidden to eat Kodshim because he is sad, and someone who is sad is forbidden to eat Kodshim (since the Torah writes "le'Moshchah" - 'li'Gedulah').

(a) Throughout the seven days of Hafrashah, the Kohen Gadol sprinkled the blood, brought the Ketores, prepared the Menorah and brought the head and the leg (of the Tamid) on the Mizbe'ach.

(b) The Kohen Gadol did not belong to any Mishmar. He performed the Avodah whenever he chose, and could receive any portion that he wished.

(a) The author of our Mishnah, which rules that the Kohen Gadol had to perform the major Avodos throughout the seven days of Hafrashah cannot be Rebbi Akiva - because according to him, a Tahor person on whom Mei Chatas falls, becomes Tamei and requires Tevilah; so how could the Kohen Gadol continue with the Avodah in a state of Tum'ah?

(b) Rebbi Akiva learns his Din from the words "ve'Hizah ha'Tahor al *ha'Tamei*" - 'al ha'Tamei, Tahor, ve'al ha'Tahor, Tamei'.

(c) The Rabbanan learn from "al ha'Tamei" - that the Haza'ah is only effective on something that can receive Tum'ah (e.g. a person) but not on something that does not (such as a live animal).

(d) The ramifications of this Derashah are - whether the Kohen needs to dip the hyssop into the ashes a second time (before he goes on to sprinkle a Tamei person or object), or not.

(a) A live animal is never subject to Tum'ah.

(b) If the Kohen ...

1. ... meant to sprinkle the ashes on an animal, but, by mistake, they fell on a person - he will *not* need to dip them into the ashes again (should he subsequently wish to sprinkle a Tamei person or object).
2. ... meant to sprinkle on a person, but, by mistake, he sprinkled on an animal - he *will* need to dip them in again. (See Bach, 5).
(a) The Rabbanan learn from a Kal va'Chomer (from the Tamei person who was sprinkled with the ashes) that the Tahor person remains Tamei. Rebbi Akiva counters this with the Pasuk in Koheles "Amarti Echkamah, ve'Hi Rechokah Mimeni" (from which we learn that the Parah Adumah is beyond logic - into which Rebbi Akiva incorporates his opinion here).

(b) According to the Rabbanan, the Pasuk in Koheles "Amarti Echkamah, ve'Hi Rechokah Mimeni" - teaches us that although the *Tamei person* who is being sprinkled and the sprinkler are Tahor, a *Tahor person* who touches them becomes Tamei.

(c) The Torah writes "u'Mazeh Mei ha'Nidah Yechabes Begadav" - not to inform us that the Kohen who sprinkles the ashes becomes Tamei (because, in fact, he does *not*) - but to require the Shiur of Haza'ah, before someone who touches them will become Tamei.

(d) Someone who *touches* the Mei ha'Nidah becomes Tamei, but the clothes he is wearing do not; whereas someone who *carries* them becomes Tamei, together with the clothes that he is wearing.

(a) Those who hold (in Zevachim) that Haza'ah does *not* require a specific Shiur, are speaking about the moment they make contact with the person who is being sprinkled - they agree however, that when the Kohen dips the hyssop into the Mei Parah, there must be a Shiur Haza'ah.

(b) The Shiur Haza'ah is sufficient water on its tip to sprinkle (and that is the Shiur referred to by the Chachamim).



7) Abaye reconciles the Tana of our Mishnah with Rebbi Akiva (who says that the Haza'ah rendered Tamei a Tahor person who was sprinkled) by restricting the Haza'ah of the Kohen Gadol during the seven days of Hafrashah to close to sunset. The Kohen Gadol does the Avodah during the day, and then, close to sunset, they would sprinkle him with the Mei Parah, and at sunset, he becomes completely Tahor.


(a) According to the Tana of our Mishnah, the Kohen Gadol would bring the Ketores during the seven days of Hafrashah, and prepare the Menorah, implying that the *Ketores preceded* the Hatavas ha'Neiros. This appears to clash with the Mishnah in Tamid, which lists the *Hatavas ha'Neiros before* the Ketores?

(b) We try to establish the Mishnah (and all Stam Mishnayos) in *Tamid* - like Rebbi Shimon Ish ha'Mitzpeh (in which case, the author of our Mishnah will be the Rabbanan).

(a) Everyone agrees that, even when sprinkling the blood of the Korban Tamid, the Kohen would first place the blood on the *north-eastern* corner in one stroke (starting from the east and ending on the north).
When he arrived at the *south-western* corner ...
1. ... according to the Tana Kama of the Mishnah in Tamid - he would do the same as he did on the *north-eastern* corner i.e. place the blood on the corner in *one* stroke.
2. ... according to Rebbi Shimon Ish Mitzpeh - he placed the blood in *two* strokes, first on the west, and then, on the south.
(b) This clashes with the answer that we gave earlier - that Rebbi Shimon Ish ha'Mitzpeh is the author of every Stam Mishnah in Tamid. From here we see that he is *not* (since *he* is the one to argue with the *Tana Kama* - and not vice-versa?

(c) So we amend the original answer, and say that the author of all Stam Mishnayos in *Yoma* is Rebbi Shimon Ish ha'Mitzpeh.

(a) The Tana of *our Mishnah* (who places the Ketores before the Hatavas ha'Neiros) - is referring to the Hatavas *Sh'tei* Neiros; whereas the S'tam Mishnah in the *second Perek*, which lists the preparing of the Menorah (each morning) in the *second* Payas ('lottery'), and the Ketores in the *third* - to the Hatavas *Chameish* Neiros.

(b) Abaye, who has a tradition that it was the *sprinkling of the blood* (of the Tamid) that divided between the preparation of the first five lamps and that of the last two, is based on the opinion of Aba Shaul - whereas the Tana of our Mishnayos, who holds that it was the *Ketores* that divided between them, is the Chachamim of Aba Shaul.

(a) When the Rabbanan say 'Yaktir ve'Achar-Kach Yeitiv' - they mean that one must interrupt the Hatavah with the Ketores (as we have already explained), but not that it preceded the Hatavas ha'Neiros completely.

(b) Aba Shaul learns from the sequence in the Pasuk "ba'Boker ba'Boker be'Heitivo es ha'Neros Yaktirenah" - that the Hatavas ha'Neiros must completely precede the Ketores.

(c) The Rabbanan interpret this Pasuk to mean that, when the Hatavah is completed, the Ketores should have already been performed.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,